I've been accused all sorts of things by the Right in the past few days. Many of these acussations have been amusing. One of the accusations (less amusing, simply interesting) has been that I simply believe what I am told about Bush's stupidity, not endeavouring to think for myself. Naturally I refute this. I mean, I haven't been in Bush's mind testing his neurological processes, I have to rely on what I see of him and what the media reports, but I make my own judgments. I think I have developed a fair reputation during the Australian election of being critical of the parties I support where I believe they have failed, and many have said so. It is harder to apply this to a foreign country's politics because I hear less, but I have made my own genuine assessments about Bush as well as Kerry. And I assess Kerry as an articulate, intelligent man capable of negotiating with people respectfully and in a clam manner. I have seen some excellent examples of him being able to talk with people and resolve disputes and calm people down.
I think there is far more to Bush's "stupidity" than an inability as a public speaker. One startling fact has always been that Bush had never travelled out of the United States until he was elected President. Overseas travel does broaden the mind for many people. (Not all. Of course we all know of the loud and obnoxious tourists who arrive at the Arc de Triomphe and declare for all to hear that they have much better back home.)
But Bush's Iraq and foreign policy to me shows his inability to understand the idea that people come from different perspectives, that people live their lives differently, that there are cultural differences that need to be respected between countries (and within countries, which I think he fails to understand given some of his extreme religious comments. It is well and good for him to be religious, but he governs for many non-religious people and people of different religions and these religious Right comments are not relevant or helpful. As his mate John Howard says, you have to govern for all, not just the people who agree with you).
Many moderate Iraqis have expressed their frustration with the way the USA, under Bush has come in and simply told them what they should do.
Salam Pax: There is this one problem, is that when they come with this idea that "Let's teach those backward brown people over there how it's supposed to be done." It's a problem with who thinks is superior to us. And coming over to Iraq telling you what you're supposed to be doing without understanding your own culture is a problem. But of course we all realised there was no way to get rid of Saddam without foreign intervention. You are standing in the middle not knowing whether to invite them in or to kick them out. You don't know what to do. You have to wait. I am still hoping and trying to be optimistic with all the problems, just looking forward and hoping that some time in the future things will get better. The 'benevolent West'. Well, they're trying. They are not listening enough to Iraqis, but they're kind of trying.
This is what Kerry is talking about when he says that he supported the removal of Saddam, but not Bush's methods. He has shown a complete arrogance and lack of cultural understanding in the invasion and implementation of democracy. I think democracy is a better system than dictatorship, albeit not the best model of democracy. However, the Republicans have been so focussed on military involvement that they have ignored working with the people, and giving them a hand up so that they can start their own nation, governed by the people. Iraq is not America and it will never be the same culture. But Bush has shown an inability to understand and respect these differences.
But they also find it offensive that Bush is using their team for his own gain when they do not support his administration's actions in Iraq. "My problems are not with the American people," says Iraqi soccer coach Adnan Hamad. "They are with what America has done in Iraq: destroy everything. The American army has killed so many people in Iraq. What is freedom when I go to the [national] stadium and there are shootings on the road?"
I think Bush has often also shot his mouth off in ways that make diplomacy a nightmare. He says things that create tensions between countries, that, even if they are true, do not need to be said. As a President, you need to be more responsible than this. Honesty is important, but making antagonistic comments or derogatory remarks about other countries is extremely unhelpful. Governments must make attempts at diplomatic negotiations with each other, despite differences in religious persuasions, political persuasions or philosophies. Many US Presidents have succeeded in this. I think Bush Snr and Clinton were far more successful at this than Bush Jnr. Jnr has been a nightmare at this. And Bush's rising arrogance convinces me that he is unaware of these problems with his conduct. I think he is unaware that he is causing tensions that endanger the lives of Westerners. And that is why I support Kerry over Bush. I think the mistakes have been so fundamental and lacking in understanding that it is necessary for a change of President.
In Australia we kept our PM because he has run the economy well in many people's eyes, so despite opposition to Australia's involvement in the war, many considered that the economy was more important. However, Bush has not run the US economy at all well. he has run it terribly, and while Kerry's policies may not be ideal to many, they are fairly liely to be better than Bush's running of the economy, which has such important ramifications for the lives of ordinary Americans.